Ron Paul recirculates ad that includes an “attack” on Mitt Romney

posted at 3:50 pm on February 29, 2012 by Tina Korbe

A Ron Paul ad that attacks all three of the Texas congressman’s GOP rivals will hit Washington state airwaves today — but it’s actually not new. “Three of a Kind” brands Newt Gingrich a “serial hypocrite,” hits Rick Santorum with “counterfeit conservative” and labels Mitt Romney a “flip-flopper.”

The campaign originally uploaded the sixty-second spot to YouTube in mid-January and uploaded it again today. Reason.com’s Mike Riggsspeculates that the Paul campaign “circulated the ad again to convince campaign reporters that they are not colluding with Romney.”

Pretty weak, if that’s the case. I’m not even sure this ad counts as unduly negative toward Romney. How does accurately labeling him a “flip-flopper” constitute an attack? Certainly, it doesn’t compare with stripping Rick Santorum of all his conservative credentials.

If Paul seriously wants to prove he’s not protecting his son’s place on Romney’s VP shortlist, he’ll have to do more than recirculate an ad that reproaches Romney. Just as he consistently calls out Santorum, he’ll have to issue consistent reminders that Romney was on the wrong side of this cycle’s biggest issues — Obamacare and the bailouts.

Another option entirely: Paul could quell the speculation of an alliance by admitting an unofficial one. Something simple like, “If I had to pick from the remaining candidates and couldn’t pick myself, I would pick Romney to be the nominee.” Alliances help reality TV stars win Survivor and they help candidates to win nominations, too. Gingrich and Cain helped each other early in the race, for example. It’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Paul just needs to be honest with himself that his “Romney restraint” gets him nowhere. Rand Paul won’t become Romney’s VP pick just because his dad played nice any more than Ron Paul will become the GOP nominee by never attacking the frontrunner.

More of this type of ad, on the other hand, might get him somewhere. It succinctly lists the other candidate’s flaws and provides enough information about Paul to make him glow by comparison. It’s simultaneously substantive and savvy — one of the better ads I’ve seen.

Tina, it wasn’t Paul who stripped Santorum of all his conservative credentials. He simply didn’t have none to begin with.

Stop being so bitter.

And yes, anyone who think there’s a holy alliance between Paul and Romney – based on fabricated empirical “evidence”, like the claim that Paul never attacked Romney – is a conspirationist nutjob. As Buckley and Kirk taught us when they ran with the Birchers out of the movement, those folks need to be called out.

I can’t believe I’m about to defend either Romney or Ron Paul here, but c’mon Tina…. The editorializing over how much of an attack it is, followed by a defense of Santorum doesn’t really pass for insightful commentary.

When you can raise $30 million for a GOP nomination race, garner scores of delegates to the national convention, and hold the GOP’s electoral chances in your right hand, then you might consider giving Ron Paul political advice.

Until then, perhaps you should STFD, STFU, listen to your superiors, and maybe… just maybe… you’ll learn a little something about politics.

I have to admit that the idea of RAND Paul as vp is starting to fascinate me. He does have some negatives-but as long as he does not share his father foreign policy views(or at least says he doesn’t) he would give Romney the same excitement Palin gave Mccain(yes I know McCain LOST). Rand Paul certainly is more knowledgable than Palin.

I might just vote for Ron Paul. My hopes for a late entrant got crushed last night. I’m closest to Paul on domestic issues and I have no doubt that he would be best for the economy, but every time he talks about Iran he scares me away again. This field is downright depressing.

Have to cut Tina some slack. She’s so young I think this is really the first presidential campaign she’s really paid any attention to, so everything is new to her and all criticisms of her candidate appear unfair and darned mean. Darned meanies and their meanie statements!!

Doesn’t owe me a goddamned thing. I’ve sent him hundreds of dollars for his campaign, and other than campaigning a little less hard than I would like, I’m quite satisfied with how my money was spent.

JohnGalt23 on February 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM

The sad thing is that if he had actually campaigned to win, he could have had a real shot in a field as weak as this. But Paul just isn’t in it to win it, and that (along with Iran) is my biggest stumbling block with voting for him.

I have to admit that the idea of RAND Paul as vp is starting to fascinate me. He does have some negatives-but as long as he does not share his father foreign policy views(or at least says he doesn’t) he would give Romney the same excitement Palin gave Mccain(yes I know McCain LOST). Rand Paul certainly is more knowledgable than Palin.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Taking Rand Paul as VP is electorally pointless. If Romney wins Ron Paul will endorse him anyway, after having exacted a price that he was likely after from the beginning of primaries. Rand is too green to boost the ticket’s cred in any area, and what else can he bring to the table – anchor crimson-red Kentucky? The choice of red-meat VP candidates is fairly long, even without Rubio.

Paul has been flushed out. His own followers must be questioning the kid glove treatment of Romney, so Paul brings out this ad to keep his ‘street cred’…

shinty on February 29, 2012 at 4:01 PM

There’s reality, and there’s what you wish reality were. Even if there were an alliance between the two candidates, I couldn’t care less. Why would his supporters feel the need to question it? It’s a campaign race. The goal is to eliminate the other candidates and win the nomination.

Ron Paul and Mitt Romney couldn’t be farther apart ideologically. Viewed objectively, the two men should be mongoose and cobra. Just a guess, but I think it’s a fairly straightforward matter of personal friendship. They happen to like each other, as do their wives. I read (somewhere, can’t remember where) that Ann Romney and Carolyn Paul have also become fast friends over the course of the campaign. It’s personal, not political, tactical, or strategic.

So no, I strongly doubt either conspiracy or political alliance. Besides, I just can’t see any political advantage for either because their respective supporters really are mongoose and cobra.

That said, I boxed as an amateur when I was younger and did my level best to beat the daylights out of several guys I counted as friends. They did the same. The second time my nose was broken was done by a guy I consider one of my best friends, whom I’ve known for going on 30 years. He said he helped make my face interesting.

Have to cut Tina some slack. She’s so young I think this is really the first presidential campaign she’s really paid any attention to, so everything is new to her and all criticisms of her candidate appear unfair and darned mean. Darned meanies and their meanie statements!!

And I hardly find the ClosetCase’s Industrial Policy, federal mandates on marriage and birth control, voting for funding Planned Parenthood, NCLB and Medicare Part D more conservative than Mitt Romney, for all Mitt’s faults.

You mean those followers who just raised for him, nearly unsolicited, a quarter of a million dollars in three days?

JohnGalt23 on February 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

You sure you want to draw attention to his fundraising abilities? Considering that was supposed to be one of his strong points, I wouldn’t brag about such a meager 3 day tally. When you count indirect Superpac commitments, he can’t even compete with Newt.

Romney has more fiscally conservative rivals after Bachmann and Perry got out? What a shame, I must have missed them.

Archivarix on February 29, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Gingrich and Santorum, both more fiscally conservative than Romney.

Paul? Well if he had anything at all to show for 2 decades in congress, well then, maybe..?

shinty on February 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Why on earth is Santorum more fiscally conservative than Romney? He has a 20 years record as an union stooge and big spender in Washington. He sold us out on right-to-work, NCLB, Medicare bribe which was the biggest entitlement expansion in decades and many times more expensive than Romneycare, inane bills like the Highway Act or the Energy Act, he was one of the most ardent porkers in DC… what am I missing here? His windowdressing votes on taxes? Spending and public debt exploded under his watch and he never cared. He isn’t a tax’n’spend liberal, he’s a borrow’n’spend liberal – just like Obama.

Paul? Well if he had anything at all to show for 2 decades in congress, well then, maybe..?

shinty on February 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Gingrich can boast of significant legislative achievements but he’s no conservative at all. He’s a Big Government stooge, albeit a smart one. As for Santorum, do not confuse his religious zeal with conservatism; the guy’s worse than Bush by an order of magnitude in every political aspect. Ron Paul would be one but his agenda obviously doesn’t involve winning the primaries, so I don’t count him.

Paul simply hasn’t much of a motive to attack Romney as the other two:
a) it makes more sense in terms of electoral strategy
b) his personal dislike for Newt is quite strong (and mutual)
c) his policy disagreements with Santorum are much stronger (and mutual – as Santorum’s constant attacks on Paul in the early debates show)

Gingrich can boast of significant legislative achievements but he’s no conservative at all. He’s a Big Government stooge, albeit a smart one. As for Santorum, do not confuse his religious zeal with conservatism; the guy’s worse than Bush by an order of magnitude in every political aspect. Ron Paul would be one but his agenda obviously doesn’t involve winning the primaries, so I don’t count him.

Archivarix on February 29, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Santorum wrote the welfare reform act, and helped pass it.

I wish I could compare his record to Paul’s, but Paul’s never accomplished anything.

I agree. The reason he lost is because the left tried to smear him as a religious fanatic, who wants a theocracy, and too many people on the right glommed onto that.

I’m going to be very interested to see the way the left attacks Mormonism, if Romney is the nominee. They can’t exactly go after his religion in an open way. They will have to be subtle about it, but you know they are going to go after it.

The Uncle is clearly not after a nomination. He aims to be the convention’s kingmaker if Romney doesn’t score the magic 50%, and get himself or Rand a cabinet post. Hence his play-along with Romney who’s clearly the likeliest to listen to his demands.

Paul? Well if he had anything at all to show for 2 decades in congress, well then, maybe..?

shinty on February 29, 2012 at 4:14 PM

This is a fool’s argument, and one with an intention to mislead. It takes many votes to pass a bill. To blame Paul for not compromising on his principles, and to blame him for his colleagues’ refusal to vote for liberty and Constitutional principles is dishonest.

Paul obviously has an alliance with Romney. I’m convinced of that. Whether it’s a formal agreement or not, I wouldn’t speculate, but Paul is definitely treating Romney much more gently than the other candidates. If believing that makes me a “conspirationist nutjob” to some people, then so be it.

I’ll cut you some slack that I wouldn’t lib4life, because, try though you might to convince me otherwise, I’m still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually are concerned about advancing the GOP and conservatism.

Ron Paul has put himself, as a lone, lonely Congressman despised by the Establishment of his party, in a position, if not to guarantee his party’s victory, at the very least ensure their defeat. And in order to forestall that possibility, the GOP will move to keep him, me, and the rest of the rEVOLut!0n in the fold.

If Paul seriously wants to prove he’s not protecting his son’s place on Romney’s VP shortlist

Nice job. We make up a theory that has no evidence or other basis in reality and then we pretend that others’ actions are motivated by it.

I agree. The reason he lost is because the left tried to smear him as a religious fanatic, who wants a theocracy, and too many people on the right glommed onto that.

It’s not a smear when it’s true.

I’m going to be very interested to see the way the left attacks Mormonism, if Romney is the nominee. They can’t exactly go after his religion in an open way. They will have to be subtle about it, but you know they are going to go after it.

Paul just needs to be honest with himself that his “Romney restraint” gets him nowhere. Rand Paul won’t become Romney’s VP pick just because his dad played nice any more than Ron Paul will become the GOP nominee by never attacking the frontrunner.

You sound like just another Paul-Romney conspiracy theorist, Tina. I realize you haven’t been following Ron Paul as long as, well, most of Ron Paul’s followers have, but the presumption of the kind you insinuate here (some sort of quid pro quo between Romney and Paul, implicit or explicit) requires that you assume that Ron Paul’s political career for the past couple decades has been nothing but an act.

Paul-Romney conspiracy theory doesn’t make sense not because Paul has attacked Romney plenty (he hasn’t) nor would it be invalidated on the basis of alignment of incentives (such as you presume here). It wouldn’t make sense because such conspiracy theory requires you to assume that Ron Paul isn’t Ron Paul—the infamous “Dr. No”.

And, after all, what would Ron Paul attack Mitt Romney on? Ron Paul’s MO is “Paul against the whole GOP” (which this ad demonstrates). Exactly what about Mitt Romney would a severe libertarian like Ron Paul pick out and focus on? That he’s a rich, successful capitalist? Ron Paul would (and has) defend Romney on those grounds, if Ron Paul was just being Ron Paul (Gingrich would (and has) attacked Romney on those grounds, being Gingrich, a perennially political creature).

And, finally, if there’s anything I would expect Ron Paul to do for the sake of his son, it’s, well, not going independent after GOP primaries—lest Rand Paul become pariah of the GOP, a station not befitting a senator. And VP candidate isn’t exactly a valuable enough prize for Ron Paul to sell out everything he’s stood for his whole life—the last VP candidate (of either party) to amount to any position higher than VP was George H.W. Bush. That should tell you something about what VP position means today for rising political stars.

Ron Paul has put himself, as a lone, lonely Congressman despised by the Establishment of his party, in a position, if not to guarantee his party’s victory, at the very least ensure their defeat. And in order to forestall that possibility, the GOP will move to keep him, me, and the rest of the rEVOLut!0n in the fold.

And that, by definition, is power.

When you have attained that level of power… question away.

JohnGalt23 on February 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

“The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.” (Muad’Dib, Dune)

I have to admit that the idea of RAND Paul as vp is starting to fascinate me. He does have some negatives-but as long as he does not share his father foreign policy views(or at least says he doesn’t) he would give Romney the same excitement Palin gave Mccain(yes I know McCain LOST). Rand Paul certainly is more knowledgable than Palin.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 4:06 PM

I like the idea of Paul as VP, and RP’s supporters would certainly give Romney a much-needed enthusiasm boost if he gets the nomination, but its not going to happen. Romney absolutely has to mitigate some of the damage that he has done to himself with his comments on “illegals.” Rubio would garner Tea Party enthusiasm, he hails from a swing state, and he could soften Romney’s image with Hispanics. Its going to be Rubio.

The Uncle is clearly not after a nomination. He aims to be the convention’s kingmaker if Romney doesn’t score the magic 50%, and get himself or Rand a cabinet post. Hence his play-along with Romney who’s clearly the likeliest to listen to his demands.

Archivarix on February 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

As a kingmaker, Paul will need to get in line behind Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and maybe some others. Not that much to bargain with, there.

Will be interesting to see Paul’s followers respond as Paul directs them to the liberal Romney.

Taking Rand Paul as VP is electorally pointless. The choice of red-meat VP candidates is fairly long, even without Rubio.

Archivarix on February 29, 2012 at 4:14 P

.
The VP selection will be the next “true conservative” hurdle for November.
Hang on to yur hat…. but the VP is going to have to be a woman and/or minority. 2 whites guys and a moving truck ain’t gonna work.
The race card is coming and coming hard, but can be easily neutalized. Foreign policy cred is gonna be huge with all the M.E. macaca caca hitting the fan- and Omarxist will showcase his OJT international skills.
.

There is an African American Woman whose time is right for the VP slot- and eliminates almost every argument the DerangedNC and librul media will be trashing the R ticket with….
Enter….Condi Rice.

I’m going to be very interested to see the way the left attacks Mormonism, if Romney is the nominee. They can’t exactly go after his religion in an open way. They will have to be subtle about it, but you know they are going to go after it.

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 4:21 PM

Yeah, they will. For the Obama campaign it would be extremely tricky business…I suspect they’ll largely steer clear. But his surrogates in the media and elsewhere will certainly make it an issue.

There might not be an agreement, but Ron Paul likes Romney more. And his libertarianism is contrary to Santorum trying to tell the country that birth control is evil and that you’re a snob if you want your children to go to college.

Ron Paul has put himself, as a lone, lonely Congressman despised by the Establishment of his party, in a position, if not to guarantee his party’s victory, at the very least ensure their defeat. And in order to forestall that possibility, the GOP will move to keep him, me, and the rest of the rEVOLut!0n in the fold.

And that, by definition, is power.

When you have attained that level of power… question away.

JohnGalt23 on February 29, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Count me as one who has no confidence in Paul using his power responsibly.

Using whatever power he’s ever had, Paul has never accomplished anything of any kind at any time, except to undercut the more conservative side when the heat of battle is on.

As a kingmaker, Paul will need to get in line behind Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and maybe some others. Not that much to bargain with, there.

Will be interesting to see Paul’s followers respond as Paul directs them to the liberal Romney.

shinty on February 29, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Both St. Scrotum and Feisty Newter are too ambitious, and have too much bad blood between them and Romney. It is also entirely possible that Ron Paul will overcome Newt in the total delegate count.

As for Paulbots, most of them see Romney for what he is: a very ambitious, non-ideological technocrat who will mostly make result-driven decisions. It’s something they can live with. Plus, as someone pointed earlier, most Paulbots are “Tenthers” and do not hold Romney as responsible for Obamacare as core GOP base.

Screw Condi, and screw the whole African American pandering. They are lost case until Obama is out, preferably finishing his term in a federal motel. If you want identity policy, you can go no better than Susana Martinez – take it from someone who took a long shot bet in May ’08 on Sarah Palin being on the ticket.

Never gonna happen Tina. If Herr Doktor was truely honest he’d have to admit the truth about his racist newsletters, his hatred of Jews/Israel, and the fact that his isolationist policies have been out of date since before the Constitution existed.

How does accurately pointing out that Rick Santorum voted for Medicare Part D, to support Planned Parenthood, to raise the debt ceiling 5 times, and against Right-to-Work constitute an attack?

How does accurately pointing out Herr Doktor’s racist associations/newsletters, his earmark hypocrisy and his dishonest double dipping of travel expenses constitute an attack?

It was the vote to confirm Wise Latina that was the third strike.

Archivarix on February 29, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Clarification: Are you saying that R.S. voted for Sotomayor? Cause you realize he was NOT IN CONGRESS when she was nominated right?

When you can raise $30 million for a GOP nomination race, garner scores of delegates to the national convention, and hold the GOP’s electoral chances in your right hand, then you might consider giving Ron Paul political advice.

So Newt and Rick can give Herr Doktor advice right?

You mean those followers who just raised for him, nearly unsolicited, a quarter of a million dollars in three days?

I’ve sent him hundreds of dollars for his campaign, and other than campaigning a little less hard than I would like, I’m quite satisfied with how my money was spent.

.
Condi- Identity AND Experience- The bar has been set pretty low by team UhObie.
And are you saying Neo-Conservative is a bad thing to offset Mittens?
.
The same problem exists for filling the VP slot- there isn’t anyone that can compliment MR. MR. Christie ? Daniels ? nope.

And are you saying Neo-Conservative is a bad thing to offset Mittens?
.
The same problem exists for filling the VP slot- there isn’t anyone that can compliment MR. MR. Christie ? Daniels ? nope.

It can’t be 2 white guys and a truck for the ticket.
Just naysayin.

FlaMurph on February 29, 2012 at 4:39 PM

When I say NeoCon, I am referring to the foreign policy outlook that mires us hip deep in AfPak and Iraq. She was Rumsfeld in a skirt. I’m no isolationist, but I think it’s realistic to say that we are not going to civilize the savage beasts in the part of the world by giving them a vote.

There is anecdotal evidence that he favors laws based on his religious beliefs. He says states should be able to ban contraceptives. He says contraceptives are evil. He says as president he will talk about contraceptives. So do you think if legislation was drafted to ban contraceptives that he wouldn’t sign it?

I like the idea of Paul as VP, and RP’s supporters would certainly give Romney a much-needed enthusiasm boost if he gets the nomination, but its not going to happen. Romney absolutely has to mitigate some of the damage that he has done to himself with his comments on “illegals.” Rubio would garner Tea Party enthusiasm, he hails from a swing state, and he could soften Romney’s image with Hispanics. Its going to be Rubio.

the only problem with Rubio is that I read he was Mormon to the age of eight(I have no idea how that is possible). I personally have no problem with it-I am a Mittbot after all- but I don’t know how it will play in the rest of the country-evenif it’s an undercurrent

the only problem with Rubio is that I read he was Mormon to the age of eight(I have no idea how that is possible). I personally have no problem with it-I am a Mittbot after all- but I don’t know how it will play in the rest of the country-evenif it’s an undercurrent

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 4:45 PM

The problem with Rubio is that he might be ineligible to serve. I know the birther angle is not particularly popular on this forum but were the GOP candidate to falter badly in October, he can always use the Trump card (pun intended) as a last-resort measure.